Reid says taxes “voluntary”

Toby · #1 (**permalink**) 07-27-2008, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Via McQ, we present a mind-bender of an interview of Harry Reid by Jan Helfeld. It appears to be a few years old, but it’s worth a flashback only to see Reid get outboxed in almost every way possible by Helfeld on a simple point: taxes are extracted from taxpayers by threat of force. Helfeld objects to redistributionism, but instead of answering that point, Reid tries to argue that taxes are voluntary:

Reid reveals himself to be a clueless fool in the course of less than five minutes. He argues that European systems use force by withholding all of their income taxes through the employer … which the US does as well. Reid senses defeat on this point, albeit belatedly, and then tries to argue that deductions make the system voluntary. Helfeld asks him several times what treatment Americans can expect if they start treating their tax obligations as voluntary, and Reid tries to insist that it doesn’t necessarily lead to prison — the government could just fine the hell out of them. First.
Here’s the right answer, of course:
American laws get promulgated by representative democracy and enforced by freely-elected executives. All law enforcement comes with the threat of force, obviously; laws against murder, theft, fraud, and so on get enforced by the same threat of force as tax evasion, which is the force run by freely-elected government. Tax policy can be changed through elections. To speak of tax law as somehow separate from all other law is a rhetorical diversion.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Reid says taxes “voluntary”

Check out the vidio in the link , does he realy have a clue?

bubba74 · #2 (**permalink**) 07-28-2008, 11:06 AM

Taxes are voluntary,

yeah for Harry.
Why do people keep electing these morons year in and year out?

dgfcby · #3 (**permalink**) 07-28-2008, 01:40 PM

Harry has the politicians double speak down to an art. Time to get him the hello out of there

bubba74 · #4 (**permalink**) 07-29-2008, 10:23 AM

He can go back to vegas and count all that money the mob gave him in the late 1970's.
Reid should have resigned or been tried for treason:

Quote:

trea·son Audio Help /ˈtrizən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tree-zuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

"The war is lost."
- Harry Reid

Toby · #5 (**permalink**) 07-29-2008, 10:33 AM

The term voluntary compliance means that each of us is responsible for filing a tax return when required and for determining and paying the correct amount of tax. The tax Law is found in Title 26 of the United States Code.Section 6012 of the code makes clear that only individuals whose income falls below a specified level do not have to file returns. While our TAX SYSTEM IS BASED ON SELF-ASSESSMENT AND REPORTING , compliance with laws is MANDATORY. State citizenship does not negate the applicability of the CODE on individuals working and residing in the United States. ------ Source: IRS

Not Mandatory Harry??

Their is a question if the Sixteenth amendment was actually legal or not and if the ratification process was followed to the letter to make it legal, I would not suggest that you not pay your taxes but we do need to bring this to the for front and question the actuality of the "LAW". We are being taxed without representation any longer and I understand the Government has the Right according to the Constitution in Article I, Sec.8 Clause 1 to have the power to lay and collect Taxes , Duties, Imposts , And excises on the citizenry.

But according to the Sixteenth amendment that in all regards was not actually ratified properly by the states and included Ohio that was not even a state at the time on Feb 13th, 1913 as a parting shot by the Taft administration to get it passed before they left office without actually following the letter of the law in the ratification process .
Does it make it Unconstitutional? Is the IRS a government agency? NO it is a private organization delegated by congress to enforce the tax codes with the right to lay fines up to $5000 if you file frivolously and have the courts impose jail time.

Is paying your Taxes Voluntary? No it is not it is Mandatory according to government and Harry Reid is wrong in his statements , is it right for them to impose taxes on income? is what you earn by working income or compensation and how should it be taxed?

Check out this article and others on the subject and make your own mind up if it is legal or not , until then we have no choice but to pay or we pay in other ways regardless if it is right or not , but it does need to be reexamined and possibly brought up for a recount by the states to make it legal or not.

The Law That Never Was

Quote:

The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was never ratified by a majority of the sovereign States.

This is the Amendment that allegedly entitled the Federal Agent (government) in the federal territory of Washington, D.C. and their private collection company, the IRS, to collect "income tax" was falsely declared to be ratified in February 1913 by Secretary of State Philander Knox.

After an exhaustive year long search of legislative records in 48 sovereign states (Alaska & Hawaii were not admitted into the Union until after 1913), Bill Benson wrote his fact findings in The Law That Never Was, Vols. 1 & 2. He was able to unequivocally prove that the 16th Amendment was never Constitutionally, properly, or legally ratified. The only record of the 16th Amendment having been confirmed was a proclamation made by the Secretary of State Philander Knox on February 25, 1913, wherein he simply declared it to be "in effect", but never stating it was lawfully ratified.

Even if the 16th Amendment were properly ratified, according to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, it has always been unconstitutional for the U.S. Federal Government to directly tax We the People in their property, wages, salaries, or earnings. The judges of the U.S. Supreme Court rejected any claims that the 16th Amendment changed the constitutional limits on direct taxes in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, when they ruled that it "created no new power of taxation" and that it "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals".

Alleged defects in the ratification of the Income Tax Amendment
According to the investigations of Bill Benson and others, the following defects were found in the ratification of the Income Tax Amendment by the 48 states then existing, three-fourths or 36 of which were needed to ratify it:

01 - Not ratified by state legislature, and so reported

02 - Not ratified by state legislature, but reported as ratified

03 - Missing or incomplete evidence of ratification, but reported as ratified

04 - Failure of Governor or other official to sign, although required by State Constitution

05 - Other violation of State Constitution in ratification process

06 - Other procedural irregularity making ratification doubtful

07 - Approval, but with change in wording, accepted as ratification of original version

08 - Approval, but with change in spelling, accepted as ratification of original version

09 - Approval, but with change in capitalization, accepted as ratification of original version

10 - Approval, but with change in punctuation, accepted as ratification of original version

16th Amendment Never Ratified

Quote:

Since 36 states were required to ratify, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the first three defects, arguably the most serious. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only two states which successfully ratified.

Note that in the above we are counting Ohio as a state, even though it was not admitted into the Union until 1953 (retroactively, which is ex post facto, and unconstitutional). We are not counting the failure to designate the Income Tax Amendment as the "XVII" amendment, since there was arguably a 13th Amendment that was ratified but which is not published in official copies of the Constitution with Amendments, and the number is not necessarily part of the amendment (It wasn't part of the first 10.).

Do we need a new form of taxing the public? Of course we do a fair tax or flat tax would be much more fair across the board than the current system , also we need to re institute other sources of income to the federal government that we moved away from when we moved away from Tariffs and Duties on foreign goods and services even if the Corps are originaly from the States.

HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY
RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT

Quote:

The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress. There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.

Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.

In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!

In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.

Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.

If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.

The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment's trend. You've probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you'd be right - they didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.

Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.

Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.

When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that it's authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota - which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.

These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn't have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper documentation? They never did.

Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal govern authority they did not have.

You can read the rest @

HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT

bubba74 · #6 (**permalink**) 07-29-2008, 10:38 AM

Do you have the money to fight the IRS or the Federal govt?
I wish I did, because that could be the string that unravels the entire rotten sweater. The Feds would fight tooth and nail using all their power to never ever let that case be decided against them. If it started looking bad, I could see some people disappear. That is why I dont fear the corps, I fear the govt. The govt can kill you.